All these rumors are flying around about the main chips inside the consoles, but I'm interested to know what graphical number they had. When I look at Halo and MGS2/3, I don't really think the developers can make the games any smoother. If the next three (or more?) consoles all have 256 (PS2, GCN and XBX all have 128), what will the graphics look like?

Like Half-Life 2 (which looks a LOT better than MGS2/Halo), maybe even slightly better. Duh. :P

Graphics can get better. Character models can have much higher poly counts, and not only that, having high polys and move around in real time.

Plus jaggies, some of the top of the line games in graphics still have jaggies. They need to go :P

I read an article in PC Gamer a while back, which I think applies to consoles as well. Basically it was about how graphics and processing power, while it's a good thing, isn't what sells games anymore, that the 'wow' factor had dropped significantly since the introduction of 3D games. Basically, that graphics don't sell games anymore. True, the difference between the Super Mario World on the SNES and Super Mario 64 is staggering, the difference between Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine isn't that great. Sure the graphics have been cleaned up, and the added processing power makes that possible, but the gameplay hasn't gotten any better. The article says that if developers want to sell games, they need to stop focusing on graphics and processing power and to concentrate on gaming, because gamers don't really care about the difference 50,000 polys (which a lazy developer can do today) and 1,500,000 polys (which you can get if the developer works at it.

I agree with that article. The revolutions in 3D gaming are pretty much over. There's only one major revolution to come and that's producing graphics that are indistingishable from humans, and the game and graphics card developers are in no hurry to get there, happy to get there by evolution, not revolution.

Consoles don't really need to advance that much. Improvements in sound maybe upgrades to 7.1 surround) and (minor) enhancements in the video card and maybe a bit of beefing up in the processor speed too, but there's no need to create a 256 bit chip. You could quite easily create a next gen console without needing to spend all the R&D money to create a 256 bit chip.

That said, console developers like the fact that their chips operate fast bit-wise than PCs, so the trend will probably continue and all the next gen consoles will probably be 256 bit machines.

Xbox is actually 32-bit.

The lines of console power are fairly blurred - bits alone mean very little (As Chris' comment would suggest). I'm fairly sure the Xbox is only 32-bit because it's based on PC architecture, which, with the exception of latest Macs and the Athlon G4, is still only 32-bit.

I still think there's some significant improvements to be made with graphics. Ever since I played Goldeneye on the N64 I struggled to think that graphics could improve significantly, yet there's been many successive games that have totally blown that misconception out of the water. I like to think that this is due to a strong emphasis on improving graphic style/feel now, as opposed to polygon pushing. Graphics may not improve as a consequence of greater processing abilities, but as a result of simply using virtually unlimited resources in new and innovative ways.

Last point-of-note is that there's still some kind of dissonance between the polygon counts of dominant character models and environments. The characters in HL2 look absolutely fantastic, but the polygon count of the environment is (while high), still significantly less. I doubt that characters are going to look much better in the future, but I think there's room for improvement in environment design.

So yeah. To answer the original question - No fucking idea.

And isn't the GCN 64-bit?

GCN and PS2 are 128 bit RISC processors. But I thought the XBox was 64 bit CISC processor? I could be wrong though.

I remember reading that the GCN isn't 128, isn't it an IBM Power PC? I thought they were 64bit?

I'd totally forgotten about bits. Seeing as they don't make a difference imo, who cares. As long as you can play games on the console, I'm happy. ;)

The Xbox CPU is an off-the-shelf Intel 32-bit 733MHz processor. Nothing fancy at all. Xbox's true strength lies in it's beasty N-vidia graphics card.

GCN is 128-bit. Some of it's bus pathways are 64-bit (and some would argue this being more significant), but it's core processor is 128-bit.

For the GCN, whilst IBM based the CPU on their Power PC architecture, the GCN's CPU is a custom built chip - that is 128-bit.

The smartest thing said in this entire thread.

Chris³ Posted on May 8 2004, 11:25 PM

I agree although if the focus does shift this can only be a good thing. I don't think it will though a lousy game can be made to be attractive to the masses if it only looks pretty and plays like a slimey eel. So I think grapics will continue to be in focus just look at the reason many people had buying the X-Box cause it's the most powerful(good games on it no doubt) and this is not the reason to buy a X-Box the compleling beauty that is Halo is. :P

This whole concern with bytes and bits is actually Sega's fault (*audience shocked @ Chris³*).

In 1989 Sega released the Genesis/Mega Drive and pushed the fact that the console was 16-bit and that the NES was only 8. It initially developed a market of technology savvy teens who knew that 16-bits meant "my console shits all over Nintendo".

Sega lost this 16-bit edge when Nintendo got around to releasing the SNES, so Sega no longer pushed that fact. However, Sega had successfully introduced the fact that more bits = more power = better games (in theory).

Throughout the 16 and 32-bit generations manufacturers all pushed the fact that their console had more power than the competition. Sega told us that PlayStation's single CPU was no match for it's three mighty processors. Nintendo told us that PlayStation and Saturn was no match for their 64-bit monster.

I think however, we have learned now that bits mean nothing - PlayStation killed N64. SNES outsold 32-bit competition from 3DO and Atari (Jaguar).

Bits are merely a marketing gimmick which, thankfully, manufacturers seem to have moved away from. None of the advertising for PS2, Xbox or GCN focus on their processing power. They tell us that they have the best games - that's why you should buy it.

Games make a console. End of story.

(Although discussing bytes and bits are always cool ^_^)